Age, inconsistency are making the reported Jason Michael for Arthur Rhodes deal unpopular across the blogosphere. Two choice cuts from today's unrest:
Tom Goodman, commenting at Swing and a Miss:
Gillick cannot decide whether or not to blow off this season altogether and the acquisition of an Arthur Rhodes would simply put off the decision. Michaels is worth more than Rhodes, who may or may not have a year or two left in his legs. My guess is Gillick still thinks he is one starter away from being a serious contender for the wide open NL East, the Mets notwithstanding. He may be right, but Arthur Rhodes doesn't get him closer if it means giving up Michaels. The better decision would be to move Michaels for a propsect, be he a starter or closer. I'd rather take a chance on a prospect than bring in a place-holder.
Chris, commenting at Balls, Sticks and Stuff:
I liked the role Michaels filled last year, too, but that role no longer exists. They didn't trade Thome for Rowand to be a platoon guy. JMike's production was best when he was playing more consistently, and that's not going to happen now. A quality bullpen is a more essential commodity than a 4th outfielder. Arthur Rhodes, however, does not constitute a building block for a quality bullpen. Michaels may be the only tradeable commodity since no one wants Abreu, so Gillick has to make this trade worthwhile and bring home a good, young arm.